Am I the only one who hated Opening Up?

[Flowerchild]

I'm venting... Everyone I know recommends Opening Up as a place for polyamorists to find advice. I personally found it utterly useless. Nice for those who were just interested in open relationships, but for emotions, deeper commitments, etc., not helpful at all.

My biggest issue was it only gave perspective from the "original" couple. Even if a third was involved, that third person was never asked, by the author, to contribute their opinions.

It assumed polyamory was, at heart, basically monogamy, except the two people could date outside, and, rarely, "share" a third, like he or she was a sex toy to "enhance," a word often used, the primary relationship, to deepen it.

Jealousy was always assumed, and it was okay, if one felt jealous, to make the other partner dump any of their commitments, if it threatened the "primary."

Anyone else feel this way?

 

[Flear]

can't say i've ever felt that way, sucks to hear you've been through that

that sounds like all the negatives rolled into one

 

[LovingRadiance]

I suggest it, with the caveat that the 3-4 chapters with lists of topics to consider are the only ones really worth reading.

I found the book, overall, not helpful. But for people whose minds go blank regarding answering "What do I want?" or "What am I willing to try?" those lists can be very helpful.

Of course, I frequently suggest using BDSM contracts instead, because they cover a lot more topics. LOL

My fav book is actually Deborah Anapol's Loving Without Limits, suggested by a mono friend on here, actually. But a lot of people don't like her ethereal way of relating, either.

I think it's critical to realize that there is no "true way," and therefore no single book to advise. There are many paths to happy poly, and everyone has to find what works for them.

 

[Marcus]

Everyone I know recommends Opening Up as a place for polyamorists to find advice. I personally found it utterly useless.

I haven't read it, but any opinion book is going to be from a particular point of view. I'm sure there are exceptions, authors who excel at presenting multiple possibilities without bias, but that would be rare.

The Ethical Slut, for example, was written from the experiential perspective of the authors and certainly isn't for everyone. There were parts of it I found rather enlightening and other parts I rolled my eyes at.

While it is easier said than done, I recommend attempting to pull from what you read the parts which do enrich your worldview, and at least give the others consideration. I find it counter productive to "hate" an opinion book simply because the views of the author do not fit perfectly with the views of the reader.

 

[westVan]

I had a very bad experience with my last long-term relationship and read it more for a broad understanding, and no, it wasn't helpful at all to me.

I haven't read any other books, but I tend to over-think and process things for a long time, and come to my own understanding of what things mean to me and how they will work for me in my relationships.

 

[Flear]

maybe i haven't come across the right article somewhere, ... kinda gives me the impression that "opening up" might mean a little different then what comes to my mind.

i think of "opening up" as "this is me, take it or leave it, not hiding anything about what my interests or views & opinions are"

 

[LovingRadiance]

Flear, it's a book called Opening Up by Tristan Taoromino.

FYI, OP, there is a book suggestion list on here with a wealth of different books and articles. You may find something more to your liking.

I agree with Marcus. I read all the time, and I try to always find the little nuggets of useful info in what I read. Everything is written from the perspective of the author. Some are more broad than others, but all are limited by the author.

 

[YouAreHere]

I recommend attempting to pull from what you read the parts which do enrich your worldview, and at least give the others consideration.

Agreed. It's the same thing I used to tell my newly-pregnant friends: "Read the books, take the average, then throw them away because your experiences will be unique."

 

[Flear]

i haven't read it, but from the sounds of it (here), definitely not interested

 

[Flowerchild]

Thanks

Perhaps "hate" was too strong a word. Still, the book was presented as the sort of Holy Grail of how to approach polyamory, and I felt it fell very short of expectations. Perhaps if I had lower expectations, I wouldn't have felt this way.

However, these are my thoughts: if terms like unicorn, primary, triad, completely baffle you; if you have never had any experience with open relationships; basically, if you've never even thought of what polyamory means-- then, yes, this book is helpful.

It presents a specific kind of relationship, in which two primary members invite a third to enhance and strengthen their own relationship. Or one or both decide they aren't satisfied with their current relationship, need to explore what it means to be poly, and date others hoping to find something that works for them-- and doesn't piss their partner off too much. That works for some, but not for me, hence my disappointment.

If this model does not apply to you, then, no, not helpful.

 

[LovingRadiance]

I think that was the point. The book was designed for the couple that is considering "opening up." It wasn't designed for someone who is single, because they aren't "opening up" a current relationship.

But I do hear what you are saying. It would be frustrating to read it if one thought it was just a book designed for polyamory. But it's not. It's a book designed to help navigate opening up existing relationships.

 

[Flear]

i can't imagine treating anyone in my life as an extra, or thinking that their views don't matter over someone elses, ... then again when "primary" and/or "secondary" come into play, i'm not interested in having a "secondary".

sure, it will make things more difficult, require everyone to grow that much more, ... but i can't treat someone as less than important, that their views are less valid than anyone elses. they're involved, their freedoms, their opinions, their interests are important to them, to their personal growth, and they have to be accepted like everyone else.

 

[Marcus]

It presents a specific kind of relationship, in which two primary members invite a third to enhance and strengthen their own relationship. Or one or both decide they aren't satisfied with their current relationship, need to explore what it means to be poly, and date others hoping to find something that works for them-- and doesn't piss their partner off too much. That works for some, but not for me, hence my disappointment

So it's a user's manual for hierarchical unicorn hunting? Good god, that's horrific! It sounds like I would not have made it through that book. I might well have "hated" it.

 

[IndieSolo]

Funny, I don't remember it being like a manual for unicorn hunting. I'm solo (not coupled), and I liked it, but I did read it a long time ago when I was new to this whole thing. I recall that she does have chapters on several types of poly, including one for solos. Maybe I liked it because I skipped the couple-focused chapters?

 

[Ariakas]

Perhaps "hate" was too strong a word. Still, the book was presented as the sort of Holy Grail of how to approach polyamory, and I felt it fell very short of expectations. Perhaps if I had lower expectations, I wouldn't have felt this way.

However, these are my thoughts: if terms like unicorn, primary, triad, completely baffle you; if you have never had any experience with open relationships; basically, if you've never even thought of what polyamory means---then, yes, this book is helpful.

It presents a specific kind of relationship, in which two primary members invite a third to enhance and strengthen their own relationship. Or one or both decide they aren't satisfied with their current relationship, need to explore what it means to be poly, and date others hoping to find something that works for them-- and doesn't piss their partner off too much. That works for some, but not for me, hence my disappointment.

If this model does not apply to you, then, no, not helpful.

Wow, that's not what I got from it at all, although it is a book about "opening up," not "becoming polyamorous." Considering I view myself as more non-monogamous than poly (for various reasons) then the book was solid. Far better than The Ethical Slut. I think only poly people tout it as a polyamory book. I am not even sure the authors do.

 

[Ariakas]

I think that was the point-the book was designed for the couple who is considering "opening up." It wasn't designed for someone who is single, because they aren't "opening up" a current relationship.

But I do hear what you are saying. It would be frustrating to read it if one thought it was just a book designed for poly. But it's not. It's a book designed to help navigate opening up existing relationships.

A person's expectation is not the responsibility of the author. Poly people have skewed what the book means. It still works as it was intended. Maybe someone should make a book called Being Poly, then there will be less confusion between non-monogamy and polyamory. (sarc)

 

[Icewraithonyx]

I started reading it after Wife expressed an interest in being involved with other people and I think it's one of my favorite books re: polyamory. At the time, I thought it did a good job of explaining a lot of questions I didn't even know I had. No, I don't think it's a Holy Bible of Polyamory (can't imagine ANY book filling that role) but I still recommend reading it.

 

[Vixtoria]

I am sorry that there seems to be this prevailing opinion that the book was about opening up a marriage to unicorns.

To be honest, I'm still absolutely baffled, here and on local groups I'm a part of, where some married couples' intros are just like really really short-handed personal ads looking for some woman for them to "treat special and shower love on." *rolleyes*

I thought the point of Opening Up was just that, opening up a relationship to polyamory. Not unicorn hunting, not hierarchy, but poly. Especially if you have been in a monogamous relationship for something like double digit years, there are bumps to contend with. Hubby and I found it helpful because we could go through the lists and scenarios and share how we felt about them. Rank in a 1-10 way how uncomfortable it made us. Not to veto it, but to move slowly. Hubby often calls moving into poly a kind of emotional yoga. There are things that are uncomfortable, but rather than just stop, we go slow, like stretching. The first couple of times, it's uncomfortable, a 5, then it goes down, as you stretch into being comfortable with it.

I can see where it would be frustrating not having any information on the POV of the other relationships, but I can also see why they wouldn't put that in the book. First, it's about opening up, so not about the new relationships, it's about becoming comfortable as a couple with the idea of one or both partners having other partners! So it doesn't really cover a lot of what to do with that other relationship. It's more like prep.

Secondly, what kind of relationship? Seems most are waiting to hear about how the unicorn feels. Well, guess what? Contrary to all evidence presented, not all couples that open to poly are looking for a third, or looking for a secondary, or deciding that the other relationship(s) is tethered somehow to their relationship, that it is vetoed or dismissed as soon as the starting relationship feels uncomfortable. Balancing a healthy relationship along with another healthy relationship does mean at times telling one partner 'I'm going to need to back off just for a bit until we settle some things in the other relationship.' But again, that goes both ways, if you want them both to be healthy, that is.

As for The Ethical Slut, it seemed more like an interesting story to me. One person's life and perspective and how they got where they were, but not really much in the way of helpful (to me) about how be to balanced or ethical in non-monogamous settings.

 

[Marcus]

Maybe I liked it because I skipped the couple-focused chapters?

As a responsible reader that would have been the reasonable thing to do. I have a difficult time continuing to get value from a writing if the author is coming from a position that I can't relate at all to, so I am not always successful in cherry-picking the relevant stuff.

Maybe someone should make a book called Being Poly, then there would be less confusion between non-monogamy and polyamory. It is a book about "opening up," not "becoming polyamorous."

I don't know anything about your views, Ariakas, but I'm curious to know what this distinction means to you: non-monogamous vs polyamorous. It seems to be central to your disagreement with the assertion (at least from the OP) that the book in question describes a particular approach to polyamory.

Your assertion is that the book does not address polyamory, but only addresses the more general classification of non-monogamy? I'm curious to hear your explanation so that I can better understand where my thinking got all befuddled.

A person's expectation is not the responsibility of the author. Poly people have skewed what the book means..

I'm polyamorous and I seem to be able to understand that the reader's expectation is not the responsibility of the author. I must be the rare exception.

 

[LovingRadiance]

I have read the book several times. It doesn't focus on finding a unicorn, and it isn't hierarchical, per se, either. It does share actual examples of how some people do things, and some of the examples are hierarchical, but not all of them.

Marcus, having spent time talking in depth with Ariakis, I feel safe saying that many of us see a great difference between non-monogamy (as an umbrella term) and poly (one form that non-monogamy can take). The book addresses opening an existing relationship to swinging, poly, fuck buddies, etc. It's not specific to polyamory.